Is amendment No. 66 governed by the decision on No. 65?
Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1944.—Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 40.
Amendment No. 66 was not moved, Sir.
Quite so. I merely want to know if the decision on amendment No. 65 governs it.
No, Sir; I move amendment No. 66:—
In sub-section (4), line 6, to delete the words "two years" and substitute the words "three months".
The Minister, when dealing with previous amendments moved by this Party, appeared to think that some of us on this side of the House are prejudiced against the directors and he appealed to those who might be so prejudiced to approach the consideration of the proposal contained in this section in a spirit of fairness. It is in response to that kind of suggestion that we propose this amendment, limiting the expression "the appointed period" contained in the section to three months instead of two years. It is with a certain amount of reluctance that I am putting forward this amendment but it is, at any rate, in response to the Minister's wish. If I were certain, or if the Minister were to make it certain by the wording of Section 41 that it would be as easy for a worker who was dismissed from his employment or who was declared to be redundant as a result of the operation of this Act to secure compensation as it is for the directors, under this section, I would not say much more in opposition to the Minister's attitude. It is being made exceptionally easy, by a clearly-worded section of this Bill, for directors who have been found guilty of incompetence to get compensation based on the fees they received during the previous two years and, in the case of one or two who are fortunate enough to be members of the board of directors of both companies, to get double compensation.
Is there anything in Section 41 or any other section of the Bill affecting those who have been working an eight-hour day in the railways as against the directors, who might not work eight hours in a month, to show that a worker who would be declared redundant would get compensation in the same exceptionally easy manner? If there is to be a spirit of fair play and justice I think it can be based only upon the willingness of the Minister to treat the workers, who have been in the service of the railway over a long period of years and who may lose their jobs, in the same fair and just manner as he proposes to treat the directors. I think that is a fair argument.
The persons for whom this generous measure of compensation is being provided have been found guilty of negligence. The proof of that is that on the 24th February, 1942, the directors were so incompetent that the Minister cancelled whatever powers they had previously held in connection with the administration of the railway service in this country, and put in their place one man having dictatorial powers. The men for whom this generous measure of compensation is being provided were found guilty of not acting in the public interest, were found guilty, I suppose, of not acting in the interests of the shareholders, and were certainly found guilty, in my opinion, of having by their incompetence endangered the means of livelihood of the thousands of men under their control in the Great Southern rail and road services. It was due to their neglect, to put it mildly, that the railways were almost closed down in the early part of 1942, because, although there was powerful influence behind them, and although they carried bank guarantees in their pockets—three of the four were bank director—a reasonable supply of coal was not purchased at that period when, no matter what anyone may say to the contrary, it was possible for these directors, if they were doing their work, if they were safeguarding the public interest, to have purchased 1,000,000 tons of coal at £1 per ton.
I am sure that is one of the reasons why this body of incompetent people were superseded by Mr. Reynolds on the 24th February, 1942. It is not their fault that thousands of railwaymen are not walking about now idle. I daresay it was due to their encouragement that, at a particular period in the beginning of this year, the present chairman of the company threatened to suspend all existing agreements between the company and its employees and to put the workers on four days per week. It is possibly due to their encouragement that many changes in the conditions of service have been brought about, to the disadvantage of the staff. Up to a few months ago certain employees who were suffering from T.B. or nervous breakdown were given generous treatment. At any rate, they were given leave of absence under fairly decent conditions to enable them to recover so as to resume their duties. Now, any employee who is certified to be suffering from T.B. or nervous breakdown gets a limited period of absence —six months—and is then fired out, thrown on the scrap heap.
The Deputy is very diffuse in his discussion of this amendment; discussing past or present grievances, real or alleged, of employees and officials.
My amendment, bluntly, is that instead of getting two years' compensation for their proved incompetence, they should get three months' salary in lieu of notice, and that is more than they have given to the many hundreds of railwaymen who have lost their employment in the service of the railway company since 1924.
I am surprised to learn that this amendment is seriously intended. As it is, I can only say that I would prefer to delete the section altogether than to accept it. I think the analogy between the proposals in this section relating to directors and the later proposals concerning other employees of the company is somewhat forced. In the case of the other employees, we are proposing to provide, as a matter of law, that if they lose their employment they will be compensated by way of pension. Any suggestions the Deputy has to make as to how that intention may be made more effective will be fully considered.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I should like you to put it, Sir.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
Amendment, accordingly, defeated.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That Section 40 stand part of the Bill."
I do not want it to be recorded on the records of the House that I am in favour of this section.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 41.
Amendments Nos. 67 to 73 will be discussed together and a decision taken on amendment No. 67. As they all propose to delete sub-section (1), if it stands the other amendments cannot be moved.
Could not a decision be taken on amendment No. 69?
No. Amendment No. 67 proposes to delete sub-section (1). The question put will be that the sub-section stands. If it is carried the others cannot be moved.
I move amendment No. 67:—
To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following two subsections:—
(1) Where—
(a) a person was, on the 1st day of July, 1944, an officer or servant of either dissolved company, and
(b) that person has not, before the establishment date, become a pensioner or annuitant by reason of his service in that company, or voluntarily retired or been removed from the service of that company by reason of misconduct or incapacity, and
(c) that person's office or situation is abolished directly and solely in anticipation of or as the result of the amalgamation effected by this Part, and
(d) the abolition of the said office or situation is not shown by the company to have been caused by decrease of traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work, introduction of improved methods of working (other than methods which would not have been feasible for either dissolved company), closing of railway lines or other economic cause,
he shall be paid by the company compensation calculated in the manner set out in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
(2) Where—
(a) a person was, on the 1st day of July, 1944, an officer or servant of either dissolved company, and
(b) that person, by reason of the amalgamation effected by this Part, is transferred to the service of the Company, and
(c) either—
(i) by reason of such transfer and without his consent, that person suffers any direct pecuniary loss, or is in any worse position in respect of the conditions of his service as a whole (including tenure of office, remuneration, gratuities, superannuation, sick fund or any benefits or allowances of that dissolved company, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice and whether applicable to himself or his widow or children or other dependents) as compared with the conditions of service formerly obtaining with respect to him,
or
(ii) that person is required by the company to perform duties which are not analogous to or are an unreasonable addition to those which, as officer or servant of that dissolved company, he was liable to perform,
he shall be entitled to be paid by the company compensation consisting of a lump sum of such amount as is reasonable.
The proposal to alter the provisions of Section 41 arose partly out of the discussion on Second Reading, and partly out of consideration of various amendments submitted by Deputies since the Second Reading. I am proposing to go a considerable way to meet the point of view put forward by Deputies, although I cannot undertake to meet all points contained in the amendments. The changes proposed are: in the first place, the date in the original section to which objection was taken on Second Reading, beyond which the pay of compensation would not be operative, is being deleted. No date is being substituted for it, so that any officer whose situation is abolished directly or solely as a result of the amalgamation at any time will be entitled to compensation calculated in the manner provided in the Fifth Schedule. We are proposing to extend protection from the establishment date to the 1st July of the present year, and this ensures that compensation will be also payable to an officer whose employment is abolished in anticipation of the amalgamation to be effected by this measure. We are putting on the company the obligation to show that the abolition of a person's employment was caused by any of the developments which would exempt the company from the obligation to pay compensation. It is proposed, if the company can show that abolition was caused by decrease of traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work, introduction of improved methods of working, other than methods which would not have been feasible except for the amalgamation or for other economic cause, that they will not be obliged to pay compensation.
The words "closing of branch lines" are included in the amendment because, as I explained previously, the Act of 1933 provides compensation on similar terms for workers disemployed by reason of the closing of branch lines. We are proposing also that any employee whose conditions of employment are altered, so as to involve him in direct pecuniary loss, or in some deterioration in his conditions of service as a whole, or any person who is required to perform duties which are not analogous to or are an unreasonable addition to those previously implied, will also be entitled to be paid compensation by way of a lump sum. In the event of disemployment arising from amalgamation the compensation will be paid by way of pension, and in the event of worsening of conditions, pecuniary loss or an unreasonable addition of duties, the compensation will be paid by way of a lump sum.
I should say that the main difference between the proposals contained in the other amendments and that contained in the one I am moving, is that in some of the others it is contemplated that employees of the company will be entitled to compensation by way of pension if they lose their employment in any circumstances in the future other than for misconduct. I am going to resist that. That is an obligation which no other employer in the State has to meet. It would give to employees of this transport organisation a security of tenure in their employment which no others, not even members of the Civil Service, have. It would be unreasonable to impose on this organisation such an obligation. I ask Deputies to bear in mind that we have a transport problem to solve. It is not yet demonstrated that that problem can be solved. We are setting up this organisation with what we believe to be adequate powers and adequate resources to solve that problem, if it can be done. We must not proceed now as if all difficulties have been surmounted, and an organisation in existence which could provide public transport services adequate for the requirements of the country and profitable to itself, and so proceed as if we could saddle it with burdens which no other commercial enterprise in the country has to bear. I would resist this obligation that absolute security of employment which employees have not got now, never had before, that no other employees have, and which would place an exceptional burden on the company which it undoubtedly would be unable to carry in circumstances in which a decline of traffic or economic causes would make impracticable to maintain the full employment which we hope successful working will enable it to afford. I think I can say in respect of that one matter that I have by this amendment made every effort to meet the important points raised in any of the amendments.
Section 41, which deals with the compensation of certain officers in the railway service, was one of the most objectionable issues in the Bill as first introduced. These points are referred to in the amendments which I tabled. I am glad to say that at least three of them—in amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72—have been met by the Minister. I should point out that, while appreciating how far the Minister has met the objections dealt with in the amendment he has tabled, I think he could very well go a little further, particularly in reference to "other economic cause". He has sufficient knowledge of the position to realise that numerous objections could be raised to these words. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.
As indicated by the Minister, there is a considerable measure of agreement between Deputies who put down a series of amendments and his amendment, but some of us have regard to a number of omissions that are of importance to the people we represent. In the first place it is a little surprising to find that the Minister has not taken any steps formally to transfer employees of the company as was the case in the 1924 Act.
That is done by the incorporation of the Railways Clauses Act.
That is not laid down?
Yes. We incorporate in this Bill the Railway Clauses Act and that has the effect of transferring all staffs.
At what stage is that done?
By Section 7 of the Bill, which provides for incorporation as part of this Act, the Railway Clauses Act, 1863.
There is another omission, those who find themselves in a worsened position. The Minister makes provision for compensation of officers. Is it quite clear that an individual is allowed to retire if not given a position analogous to the one he held in the company? That was a concession conceded in an earlier Act, that a man was allowed to retire if he desired to do so. The main burden of our complaints concerns the closing of branch lines and the words which are almost as vicious, "other economic cause".
The Minister is aware that, even since last April, about 11 branch lines have been closed down and there is no great hope that a number of them will be reopened. He is also aware that a very considerable mileage of road is involved and, as a result, a fairly heavy complement of staff. It may be argued that the individual concerned is covered by Section 9 of the Railways Act 1933, so far as compensation arising out of closing of branch lines is concerned, but that is not so, because under the 1933 Act the company had to go before the Minister to get the necessary sanction for closing a line. That is not so in this case, and branch lines to the number of about 11 have been closed, as I say, since April.
The Minister's intention was stated on the Second Reading of the original Bill at column 2458 of the Official Debates, when he said:—
"The intention is that every worker who loses his employment through redundancy will get compensation and I can assure the House that there will be no attempt made on behalf of the board to evade that and if there is I assure the House I will remedy it."
I suggest that, so long as this clause stands, it would be impossible for the Minister to implement the undertaking he gave on that occasion. There is then the matter of the other phrase, "other economic cause". That phrase found its way into the 1926 amending Act and gave rise to endless confusion in the courts, and disappointment to applicants for compensation who had to make their claims at that time. In fact, as the Minister knows, one particular case, the famous Peat case, lasted ten days, the ten days being occupied by learned counsel in trying to get a definition of the phrase. It was finally stated by the President of the High Court and Judge Davitt that the phrase defied classification.
The Minister will, I think, agree with me when I say that the company will be amply covered so far as a decrease in tráffic is concerned. If there is some economic cause, it will obviously reflect itself in a decrease in traffic, with consequent reactions in the matter of renewals and maintenance. That should be sufficient to obviate the necessity for introducing a mysterious phrase of this character which may mean nothing, but which will definitely cause confusion, as was the case on a previous occasion, and lead to considerable expense to applicants who have to go before the courts. We appeal very strongly to the Minister in regard to these two points which represent the only fundamental difference between his amendments and ours. We ask that he should give way on them and afford a measure of satisfaction to those on this side and to those whom we represent.
The Minister said he would resist any effort to secure compensation or pension for certain people who might eventually lose their employment, which loss of employment was not due to the working of the Act, because he said it would be giving to these workers rights which workers in private employment had not got. Suppose there is a diversion of traffic, as happened in days gone by, and men find, after a number of months or a few years, that employment on a particular line is reduced. That diversion of traffic may be caused by people sending goods a different way. Will it be possible for the directors to say that it is no fault of theirs and that the working of the line had become uneconomic because people with merchandise or cattle to send are sending them by another route?
One must look on this great effort to deal with transport as the planting of a seed from which a great tree will grow. If, in the course of time, one of its branches touches the type of person I refer to, will the Minister see to it that such people will not lose their employment without adequate compensation or pension, or that alternative employment will be provided on busier lines? I suggest that the Minister should make a general statement that the Bill will not in any way worsen, now or at any time, the position of workers engaged in railway, canal or tram transport, without adequate compensation for their period of service.
My purpose in putting down my amendment was to secure that any worker who was dismissed would be entitled to compensation, because, under the Bill as it stands, the directors will take advantage of the section on the plea that the disemployment arises from reasons other than amalgamation. On the basis of the assurance which the Minister gave to the House that he would see that no worker was victimised, I suggest that my amendment would give protection to a worker against any attempt by the directors to take advantage of the section. I also sought to secure that workers employed by companies which were absorbed by the new company would be entitled to pensions. I think that is quite a reasonable suggestion. The directors may put forward the excuse that for other reasons, such as the improvement of a line or a change in the transport system, they have to disemploy large numbers of men, and the men will not be in a position to prove that their disemployment is the result of amalgamation and will not be entitled to compensation. I feel that the Minister should implement the promise he made that no man will be victimised in any way by reason of the passing of this measure.
I want to support the appeal made by my colleague, Deputy M. O'Sullivan, with special reference to the menace to railway workers employed on branch lines. I speak on behalf of the workers of a constituency where at least one branch line has recently been closed down and where rumours are rife at the moment as to the possibility of a number of branch lines being closed in the immediate future. A proposal of this kind which will enable the company to escape liability for the disemployment of the people concerned would be an economic death sentence for these workers, a number of whom are becoming advanced in years. I remember the aftermath of railway legislation in the past when tremendous confusion, disappointment and failure attended the efforts of railway workers to establish their claims because of loopholes which then existed. I regret to find the Minister carrying over a very large number of these opportunities, judging by the proposals before us, to enable this powerful corporation to escape liability for disemployment in the future.
It seems to me that there is no alternative to the proposal that railway workers should be positively secured in their employment and that everybody in employment, other than those dismissed for misconduct, should have their rights protected and enshrined in this measure. I urge the Minister, who has a very distinct recollection of, and who has expressed his views very strongly in the past in regard to, the aftermath of previous railway legislation to make special provision in this measure, and to do it in an ungrudging manner, so as to make sure that there will not be a new string of victims of disemployment to follow as a result of the operation of this measure.
Deputy Everett quoted me as having said that it is our aim to ensure that no worker will lose as a result of the passing of this Bill. That is precisely what our aim is. But we must not try to extend that assurance beyond its obvious meaning. Deputy O'Sullivan quoted an observation of mine concerning redundancy. Clearly our obligation here is to ensure that nobody will lose as a result of the action we take here. Here we are proposing to legislate for the amalgamation of two companies, and we have to ensure that nobody will lose as a result of that action. But I suggest that that does not mean that we must guarantee to those who are in the employment of either company that no circumstance whatever will jeopardise their employment. That is a far wider assurance than I gave and a far wider assurance than I think we could give and would secure for these workers permanency of employment in all circumstances which no other class of worker has.
Deputy Doyle referred to this phrase "economic cause" and Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the difficulty which the court had in interpreting it. If there is any difficulty in determining what constitutes an economic cause, it will react against the company. The position is that we are placing on the company the obligation to pay compensation. In the ordinary case, the company will pay that compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule, and it is only where there is a dispute between the company and the employee as to the applicability of the Act in the employee's case or in other circumstances that the question will come to arbitration. Therefore, according to the phraseology of the amendment, the onus of proof is on the company and if there is, as I said, any difficulty in the matter of showing that there is an economic cause which resulted in the disemployment of the worker and not some other cause directly attributable to the Act, the difficulty will be the company's. The worker does not have to prove the contrary; the burden of proof is upon the company.
I could mention straight away two or three economic causes which would seem to me to be obvious. Suppose that at some stage after the constitution of the company imports of petrol stopped or imports of coal stopped. That would create an appalling situation for the company. It might suspend their services altogether and create a situation in which they would have no revenue, and while I do not expect that that situation will arise and I hope it will not, it is clear that, if we are to face that situation with an obligation to pay compensation by way of pension calculated in accordance with the Schedule to the workers whose services could not be maintained, we would be just adding to the difficulties which the company would have to bear in such conditions. If somebody invented a substitute for cement which would be cheaper and better than cement, the workers employed in the manufacture of cement would find their employment in jeopardy, if not terminated altogether. That would be an economic cause affecting them. However much we would like to do it, no one would seriously suggest that the very company which was employing these workers and whose business had been destroyed by that new invention should be put under a legal obligation to provide for all these employees by way of pension for the rest of their lives. That is why I think we must be reasonable in this matter and reason requires that we should ensure that, to the extent to which we take any action here which has a reaction on the employment or livelihoods of individuals, we will compensate them. But if other economic causes outside our control, or circumstances such as those described in the amendment, operate to affect the employment of these workers, then that is a situation which will have to be dealt with by this company as other commercial enterprises deal with corresponding situations.
I was not going to refer to this question of the right to retire because I felt it would arise more properly on amendment No. 74, an amendment which I have in my own mind described as an "Article 10", because the proposal is to give transport workers rights more or less corresponding to those given to civil servants under Article 10 of the Treaty. I do not think we should attempt to do that. There is nothing in the history of the operation of Article 10 of the Treaty which would recommend its application to the circumstances of this company. Deputy O'Sullivan is wrong in assuming that the 1924 Act did give that right to the employees of the railway companies that were then amalgamated. The Act of 1924 gave the right to compensation to employees who voluntarily retired prior to the amalgamation, not subsequent to the amalgamation. In order to appreciate why there is no similar provision here, it is necessary to bear in mind the different circumstances of the amalgamation that was effected then and that which is proposed here. We are proposing to amalgamate two companies and each of these companies operates a transport service which is self-contained. It is only to a very limited extent that there is any overlapping of those services. In 1924, 24 railway companies were amalgamated. These companies operated overlapping and competing services and it was obvious that the amalgamation would create a large number of redundant officials because, in so far as there were five or six people at that time doing jobs for separate undertakings all of which would be amalgamated in one after the amalgamation, it was clear that there would be a great deal of redundancy and the obvious desire of those framing the legislation was to encourage as many as possible to retire before the amalgamation was effected so as to reduce the redundancy problem with which the new company would have to operate.
That is not the position in which the new company will find itself. On the contrary, we think it is undesirable that officers of the existing companies should be induced to retire. There is no longer any such problem as existed in 1924 and the proposal which is contained in this later amendment to encourage the officers of the existing companies to retire on pension and then take other employment elsewhere is one which should be resisted because, in so lar as the services of these skilled workers or experienced workers may be required for the new company, they should be available to the new company. If they do not want to serve the new company, they are not entitled to be compensated by it because they prefer to cease work altogether or to take some other kind of employment that may be available to them.
Deputy O'Sullivan is also incorrect concerning the closing of branch lines. He must not comuse the closing on branch lines with the suspension of services on branch lines during the emergency and for reasons arising out of the emergency. A branch line cannot be closed except in accordance with the provisions of the 1933 Act and, it closed under the provisions of that Act, the compensation sections of that Act come into operation. By reason of a scarcity of coal, scheduled services were suspended on certain branch lines last year. No employee of the company lost his employment on that account. The suspension of the scheduled services does not mean that the branch lines were closed, or that authority has been given to the company to keep them closed. In fact, they are not closed, as special trains still operate on them for the transportation of cattle, grain or beet. In any event, no authority has been given to the company to close these branch lines. I that should happen, then the workers who may be disemployed by reason of the closing will be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 1933 Act.
Are you prepared to include them?
There is no doubt that that is the law at the moment.
The trouble is that, when members of the staff would be forced to apply for compensation, as the law will stand when this measure is in operation, they will have to refer to the Transport Act of 1944 and the Railways Acts of 1924 and 1933. We suggest the time has arrived for a codification of the compensation clauses, and I suggest they should be clearly set out in this Bill.
The Deputy is overlooking one important point. This Bill will determine the law in relation to Córas Iompair Éireann. The Railways Act of 1933 applied to all railways and, if we were to take that particular section out of the 1933 Act and put it into this Bill, the effect would be to give these rights only to the employees of Córas Iompair Éireann and deprive the employees of the Great Northern or the Donegal Railways of those rights. The 1933 Act applies to all railway undertakings and it is necessary to keep the provision in that Act rather than put it into this measure. The Deputy need have no doubt that the scope of the provision is ample. He can forget about the 1924 Act—that ceases to be operative. The statutes to which the representatives of the railway workers will have to refer are this measure and the 1933 Act. There is also the Road Transport Act, which affects road transport mainly.
It may be there is some misunderstanding concerning the question of redundancy. During the course of the year, when I had occasion to travel through the country, I met a large number of railway workers who formed deputations in different districts, and this question of their future security was one that they frequently raised; in fact, it was one they invariably raised, because it was obviously a matter which was worrying them greatly. As put to me, it was in this form: "As railway employees, we fear that railways may be of limited life; that, despite the faith which you may have in the possibility of making railways a profitable proposition, capable of maintaining the employment of railway workers, we cannot ignore the possibility that railways may disappear and that all the transport of the country will be carried on the roads. We are anxious to secure, in such event, that the increased employment that will be given on road services will be availed of for the benefit of the railway workers whose employment may be terminated or diminished."
That is not a matter we could provide for in legislation. There might be, and clearly are, obvious difficulties in ensuring that railway workers, in the event of such a diminution of railway traffic as they fear, would be transferred automatically to road services, and clearly it is a question which would necessitate not merely very deep consideration, but I think, consultation with the representatives of the workers, because there are varying conditions of employment in the road and rail services, and it might be the cause of very considerable difficulty to determine the terms and circumstances under which a railway worker no longer needed for railway work would be transferred to road work in the employment of the same company.
It is the desire of the Government and, I am sure, will be the desire of the company's management, to ensure that any variation in the forms of transport in use will result in the least possible dislocation of employment. That was the argument advanced in favour of the 1933 Act, and that argument still holds good and is applicable to this measure. The intention is to ensure that in a time in which transport developments are taking place, in which technical changes are almost bound to occur, that, by having all forms of public transport under the management of one company, we can ensure that such changes, if they develop, will have the least possible effect in the dislocation of the employment of individuals. The intention is there to ensure that technical changes If they develop, will not necessarily result in the disemployment of workers on discarded methods. The implementation of that intention will, I think require consultation between the company's management and the representatives of the railway workers and road workers, because there will be difficulties which will have to be resolved. I think those are the main points that have been mentioned.
Deputy Byrne referred to the possibility of a diversion of traffic. I presume he had in mind the same idea as that to which I have referred—the possibility of one form of transport being less frequently utilised and another form being more frequently utilised. If that is so, the remarks I have made apply. If the Deputy has in mind, however, that the economic development of one part of the country may be more rapid than that of another part, that towns where there are factories now may become less important industrially and other towns may become more important industrially, and that the flow of traffic over the company's system may become heavier for one area and lighter for another, there will be no difficulty in ensuring that the company will adjust the employment of its workers so as to minimise any disemployment that may result from that, and certainly to avoid a situation in which workers will become disemployed in one part of the system while new recruits are being taken on in another part. I think the agreements which exist provide some safeguards against that possibility.
I have gone as far in this amendment as it is desirable to go to meet all the points put forward and I think it would be unwise to go to the fuller extent suggested in a very wholehearted manner by Deputy Everett, whose proposals are that we should compensate every worker who loses employment, getting rid of arbitration and everything else, no matter what the case may be. We should not go that far, and it would be unreasonable to expect that. The only circumstance in which that situation could arise is one in which the ability of the company to pay compensation or provide better conditions for its workers would be at its minimum.
When I was speaking on Transport Bill (No. 1) and arguing against the inclusion of the date, 1st July, 1945, as the date after which no compensation could be paid to persons who were retired and dismissed, the Minister answered me by saying that the redundancy, to whatever extent it would arise, would arise only amongst the ranks of the executive officers. Is not that so? The Minister, by arguing here to-day as he did at the commencement of his speech, puts up all those imaginary conditions which may create such a serious state of affairs for the company that, in certain circumstances cited by him, the company may not be able to pay compensation because they would not have any revenue. Why did not the Minister put up that kind of argument as a justification for refusing to pay compensation to the directors? The majority of the members of this House, by their votes on Section 40, have passed a section which, when it becomes law, will enable those directors who decide to retire to get a lump sum compensation amounting to thousands of pounds out of the pockets of the shareholders of the company, whether or not there is any petrol or coal available.
As the Deputy has said, the House has passed that section.
There is no harm in reminding some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies as to what they have voted for.
The Fianna Fáil Deputies are quite aware of it.
Order.
At any rate, the Minister now quite clearly—I do not want to misrepresent him—gives the impression that in certain circumstances he could not agree to the compensation for the reasons quoted. If we want to approach consideration of this matter on the basis of justice and fair play, there should not be one law for those who have enough of the world's goods and a different law for those who may lose their employment and be thrown on the scrap heap, people who—as, unfortunately, happened in the case of some of those who lost their employment before—may have to go to the labour exchange after having been refused compensation arising out of the words mentioned by the Minister. The insistence of the Minister on maintaining those mysterious words in the present Bill is a thing which I cannot understand, and he has not explained it. Two different cases, test cases if you like, were submitted on different dates to two distinguished members of the Bar who were then arbitrators under previous Railway Acts, and who are now distinguished members of judiciary. On the same kind of argument put to the two different persons they gave two different decisions. One test case was decided against the particular man, and, as a result, over 100 men who agreed that this test case applied to themselves lost the decision, and got no compensation. On the meaning of the phrase "other economic cause" one judge, a judge of to-day, took one view, and another still more distinguished judge took another view. Deputy the Lord Mayor referred to the Peat case, which was brought before a very high member of the judiciary in 1929, five years after the 1924 Act was passed. It took ten days to have that case argued by the most distinguished lawyers in the land at the time. Why should an ordinary railway worker who loses his employment and who is deprived of compensation by a decision of the board of directors be obliged to employ senior counsel to take part in an argument lasting for ten days? Many of the men who lost their employment in the past, and men who may lose their employment in the future as a result of this section, may not be members of any union, and if they are not they will have to put up with the decision of the board of directors or the management and suffer the consequences. I think we should make provision for persons of that kind.
What provision does the Deputy suggest?
The Minister made a very fair statement at the conclusion of the Second Reading of the Bill on 9th May, 1944, as reported at column 2458 of the Official Debates:—
"The intention is that every worker who loses his employment as a result of redundancy arising from the amalgamation will be compensated, and, no matter what period we put in the Bill, if after that date it is shown to me— and I give this undertaking on my own behalf and on behalf of my successor, and I think I can put him in the position that he must be bound by it—that any worker was denied the compensation he would have been entitled to but for the lapse of the period in the Bill, I will introduce a special Bill naming that worker and making it binding upon the company to pay the prescribed compensation. The intention is that every worker who loses his employment through redundancy will get compensation, and I can assure the House that there will be no attempt made on behalf of the board to evade that, and if there is I assure the House I will remedy it."
Redundancy resulting from amalgamation.
As a direct result of amalgamation, not as a result of the things mentioned by the Minister, which are not in the minds of the persons responsible for this amendment. If any railway worker loses his employment after the coming into operation of this scheme, and if he applies to the board or the management for compensation and is refused, will the Minister then bring in a Bill to remedy that matter, or will he force the person who is refused compensation, if that person has funds at his disposal, to go before an arbitrator and have a repetition of all those arguments as between men who say they are mystified—those are the words used by one judge—and cannot classify the meaning of those words "other economic cause"?
The Deputy's suggestion is that I be the arbitrator instead of a judge of the High Court?
The Minister's attempt to remedy what will be done wrong by the management will take place only after the individual concerned has been obliged to bring his case before the arbitrator, if he has the funds to do so, and has had a decision given against him. It is only after the person concerned has been put to all that trouble, delay and expense that the Minister will remedy the matter as he has promised to do.
It need not cost him a penny.
I should like the Minister to explain that.
The arbitrator can award costs against the company.
The man who has no funds at his disposal will not get a lawyer to argue his case before the arbitrator. The Minister knows that perfectly well.
What does the Deputy suggest? I am anxious to get this clear. We say: This is the law, that if a person loses his employment as a result of the amalgamation he shall be paid by the company compensation calculated in accordance with this section. That is the law—if a person loses his employment he shall be paid compensation. That could not be more definite. Could it? We have, however, to deal with the possibility of a dispute arising. The company may say to the individual: "You did not lose your employment because of the amalgamation. You lost your employment because you were inefficient, negligent, or neglectful of your duty, or for some other good cause we dismissed you." The individual says: "That is not true, and I want to dispute the case." We provide, therefore, that if he wants to dispute the case he can go to an arbitrator. The arbitrator decides on the merits of the case. If he decides that the company was wrong in refusing compensation, he can award costs against the company. Could we go further than that? Has the Deputy any proposal to make to improve that machinery?
Does not the Minister know perfectly well from his personal knowledge of cases affecting constituents of his own, and arising out of the arguments before the arbitrator under the 1924 Act, that there are many men in his own constituency who have not the backing of the funds of a trade union organisation to bring a case before the arbitrator? In any such case, will he undertake to insert provisions in this Bill which will enable a man who has no such funds at his disposal to have his case brought before the arbitrator, and to pay the costs? Of course, he will not.
If we offered to pay the costs in every case—and that is what the Deputy suggests—it would mean that, for the next 50 years, every man who, for any reason, was dismissed from the employment of this company would take his case before an arbitrator. Why would he not? It would cost him nothing.
I am not making that kind of case, at any rate. I am referring the Minister to decisions he knows well and which he understands better than I do. There was the Kearns test on which the cases of many of his constituents fell, whereas in a case of the same kind, brought before a different arbitrator, who is now one of the highest judges in the land, a different decision was given after ten days' argument.
What is the Deputy suggesting? How is that different?
I want to know at what stage of the case—where a person makes application for compensation and is refused—will the Minister come in to give effect to that promise?
I have given effect to that promise by taking the date out of the Bill altogether. What I said was that if, after that date, somebody who was entitled to compensation did not get it, I would bring in special legislation to ensure that he got it; but I am going further—I am removing the date altogether, so that the rights given in this Bill will be there in perpetuity.
We also want—and I am sure common sense Deputies in every Party will agree—this whole legislation, which is supposed to be the last word in Government policy, brought up to date and put into sections of the Bill in such plain English language that the management of the company will be given to understand their responsibility in matters of this kind and the workers, without employing lawyers, will understand their rights to compensation if they lose their employment as a direct result of amalgamation. Why cannot the Minister, with the assistance of his able advisers, carry out that simple and reasonable request?
I submit that we have done so.
I may be a duffer to a certain extent, but I have argued that point in this House in my own way on all these Bills that have been introduced since this House was established in 1922. We have inserted in these Bills these mysterious words, which are only understandable to certain types of lawyers. Every section of the Bill should be drafted in such a manner that every railwayman with an average education would understand what his rights were under the terms of the Bill, without having to go down to the Law Library, employing junior and senior counsel to get a reference to all these prehistoric Acts mentioned in the Bill—Acts passed in the British Parliament, as well as in this House since it was established. Ordinary railwaymen who are plain citizens of this country should not be put to all this trouble and expense.
No previous Acts are mentioned.
The Minister should prescribe for the workers in the same plain, understandable language as he is doing for the directors of the company. I am making that simple request; I hope I am not making it too late and that he will, before the next stage of the Bill, carry it out. I am making the request to him, on behalf of a large body of organised railwaymen who do not want to be put to the trouble and expense of looking up the Acts of the British and Irish Parliaments in regard to the meaning of words of this kind. I do not wish to delay the discussion in connection with this, but there is certainly a very serious difference between the amendment moved by the Minister and the amendment down in the name of Deputy M. O'Sullivan. We could not under any circumstances agree to the Minister's amendment, so long as he insists upon including the words which have caused so many railwaymen such a lot of expense and which have cost some of them the loss of their jobs without any compensation.
Surely the experience of the past is something to guide the Minister in his desire—and I assume it is a sincere desire—to see that no railwayman or transport worker will lose his employment after the coming into operation of this Bill, without some sound reason. He mentions the possibility of the cutting off of petrol or coal. We are not arguing against his point of view in a matter of that kind. I suppose that, if the services of the transport company had to be shut down indefinitely, for reasons of that kind, the House would have to meet specially to deal with the situation. It would be a much bigger issue. It would not be an issue affecting the rights of transport workers to compensation, but one affecting the whole community, and we would have a more serious matter to face than the issues now being discussed in connection with this amendment.
The railway trade unions have, and have had, at their disposal in connection with the meaning of this section, the advice of the most important lawyers in the land; and it is the opinion of those senior lawyers—I assume that their opinion is as good as that of the legal advisers behind the Minister—that it is desirable that a section should be inserted in this Bill making it clear that the existing officers and servants of the two companies concerned should be transferred in legal form. That was done under the Railways Act, 1924, where it is definitely laid down in the Third Schedule:
"Every existing officer and servant shall, as from the date of amalgamation or absorption, become an officer or servant of the amalgamated company."
That provision was considered necessary in the 1924 Act, and it should be equally necessary in this Act and, in any case, there should be no doubt left in the mind of anybody as to what the legal position is or is to be. I appeal to the Minister to realise that there is no big principle or issue involved. I appeal to him to reconsider the point, especially in connection with the amendment moved by Deputy M. O'Sullivan. The Minister has answered the point put to him by Deputy M. O'Sullivan concerning the closing down of branch lines. Is he legally advised that branch lines cannot be closed down as the law stands, or as the Bill stands? Can a branch line be closed down in normal times without a Ministerial Order?
That is right.
The Minister said also that the onus of proof was on the company, whenever an application is brought before the arbitrator for compensation. Is the Minister not aware that it is difficult for the applicant, in a case of that kind, to answer the company's case, unless he is able to get hold of the necessary company documents for that purpose? There is a further amendment dealing with that and perhaps the Minister will give that sympathetic consideration. It has been found, as a result of experience in dealing with certain cases, that the applicant, when appearing before the arbitrator, failed to prove his case, simply because he had no authority to compel the company to produce documents that were essential for that purpose. That is a very important point and, although it is not exactly contained in this amendment——
It comes under amendment No. 79.
It is a case, at any rate.
To be argued on amendment No. 79, I submit.
Very well. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the wording of his own amendment and, in the light of past experience—which was very costly to many hundreds of railway workers, including some in his own constituency and some that are know to him personally and many who are known to his official advisers—to have these words cut out. If there is going to be no redundancy in normal times, except amongst the executive officers of the company, there is no use in having a lengthy argument as to whether these words should be retained in the Bill or cut out.
For the information of the Deputy and for the information of his legal advisers, I wish to point out that Section 7 (2) of this Bill incorporates and makes part of this Bill Part V of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863. Section 49 of that Act is as follows:—
"All clerks, officers, and servants who at the time of amalgamation are in the employment of the dissolved company shall thereupon become clerks, officers or servants, as the case may be, of the amalgamated company, with the same rights and subject to the same obligations and incidents in respect of such employment as they would have had or been subject to as the clerks, officers or servants of the dissolved company..."
That is Section 49.
Of what?
Of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863. The Deputy said that the Railways Act of 1924 provided that existing officers and servants should be transferred and become officers and servants of the amalgamated company. That was necessary because only officers and servants with more than five years' service were deemed to be existing officers and servants under that Act. The Railways Act of 1924 did not provide for the transfer in that manner of officers and servants of less than five years' service. It was necessary to make that special provision there. Under this Bill we provide for the transfer to the new company of all employees of the existing companies irrespective of length of service.
Would the Minister not consider incorporating the section of the 1933 Act in this Bill and at the same time leave it in the 1933 Act?
It would be a completely unnecessary procedure. There is not the slightest doubt of the fact that all the circumstances arising from the closing of a branch line are provided for. It provides for the circumstances under which any railway branch line may be closed and all the consequences that follow from that.
Except that it would obviate the difficulty experienced by the employees in looking up the Act.
We must keep that Act because it applies to other companies as well as those affected by the Bill.
If it were incorporated in this Act the employees would have to look up only one Act.
I do not think there will be any difficulty from that point of view. The position will be understood.
I want to make another appeal to the Minister not to retain this term "other economic causes". The Minister has already given us an indication of how difficult it is to classify this particular term. I would suggest that in his own amendment and in a similar amendment that we have down here he has a sufficient range of defences outside that term to ensure that the company's interests will be protected. It is obvious that every member of the staff will feel so long as that phrase remains that there is an invitation to the company to use it arbitrarily in certain circumstances against members of the staff. I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister is clinging so rigidly to that particular phrase. To quote one instance he gave, he still has the phrase, a decrease in traffic which is a phrase——
A decrease in traffic is a decrease in the amount of business available to the company which is an entirely different thing from a decrease of the company's ability to take the traffic there. We are providing for compensation for disemployment resulting from the amalgamation, not compensation for disemployment resulting from economic causes. I cannot get a better phrase than that. I did not say that it would be impossible to define it. What I said was that if it were defined, it would affect the company and not the worker. I want to remind the House that this is not the 1924 Act and we are not amalgamating 26 railway companies here. The redundancy arising from amalgamation in the case of this Bill will be insignificant in comparison with that which arose under the 1924 Act.
I suggest it is useful to keep in mind the practices that obtained as a result of this particular clause in the 1924 Act. As pointed out by Deputy Davin there was a whole crop of trouble in the courts arising out of that particular case. When you had eminent members of the judiciary and of the Bar finding difficulty in defining it or classifying its meaning the Minister might be well advised to fight shy of it on this particular occasion.
Can the Deputy give me a better term? There must be some such term. That is the essence of the whole clause.
Can you tell us that the definition is not going to be used against the workers?
I do not want my opinion to be taken as having any legal weight.
Arbitrators have gone on Ministerial statements in the past in order to try to get an understandable definition and if a member of the Supreme Court says that the meaning of these three words defies classification is it not a serious matter to insist on their maintenance in the Bill?
I am trying to ensure that every person who is disemployed or who is worsened in his employment by reason of the amalgamation will be compensated in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
Where a decrease in traffic is brought about by the diversion of traffic, as a result of the direct action of the board, will the men employed on the line from which the traffic is diverted get compensation?
If the disemployment is due to the introduction of improved methods of working which would have been adopted by either company apart from the amalgamation, then that is an economic cause which would not ontitle these people to compensation. The position of the workers and the company in that regard will be the position of workers in every other type of employment.
Is that not a hardship on the workers?
We are not worsening their existing rights by one iota.
Under amalgamation you may have better methods and more money to provide facilities by which traffic can be diverted to some other line.
If the improved methods of working are such as could not have been introduced except for amalgamation then the worker is entitled to compensation.
So that a man will get compensation if he is disemployed as a result of the diversion of traffic from a line on which he has been working?
I am not quite sure what the Deputy means by diversion of traffic. If there is a decline in the traffic available to the company, or if there are new methods of working which would have been adopted in any event, then clearly the position of the worker will not be different to what it has been in the past.
Because of the conditions given to them in this Bill, the company may be able to do something to provide better facilities and to divert traffic that may be uneconomic but which is necessary for the farming community. If that traffic is diverted to another line, are the men on the line from which the traffic has been diverted to be thrown on the scrap-heap?
Train services cannot be discontinued without a Ministerial Order.
Is it not a fact that if a train service is discontinued on a line by a Ministerial Order——
Compensation is payable under the 1933 Act.
But sub-section (1) (d) would exclude it.
Because it is already provided for in the case of the railways under the 1933 Act.
And the burden of proof is on the company and not the worker?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared carried.
In view of the Minister's refusal to cut out those words, I wish to have my name recorded as being opposed to the section.
I make the same request because of the same phrase.
I should like my name also to be recorded.
Amendments Nos. 68 to 74a, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 75 is I think consequential. I am assuming that Deputy Everett does not want to abolish the right to arbitration now that a limitation is put on the classes of persons who will get compensation.
I should like to have a ruling from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle as to whether or not it is consequential.
Amendment not moved.
I move amendment No. 76:—
To add at the end of sub-section (3) the words "subject to and with the right of appeal to the High Court on any question of law."
Deputy Davin referred to this point before. We had numerous cases arising under the previous Acts in which decisions were given on questions of fact which were against the interests of the men. It is not quite clear in this case who the standing arbitrator is to be. He is to be appointed by the President of the High Court. He might be a junior barrister and certain decisions might be given on the facts, in the earlier cases, which might be bad law. Cases of that kind did occur and we suggest that the men's interests should not be prejudiced and that, in test cases particularly, they should have a right of appeal on questions of law as distinguished from questions of fact.
From the point of view of the workers, this is a most unwise proposal. It is desirable that arbitration should be final. If you give a right of appeal to the High Court, you open up a vista of litigation, with High Court costs being imposed on applicants who have been before the arbitrator. You cannot have a right of appeal on one side only. Deputy Davin has already spoken of the cost of arbitration. If you give a right of appeal to the High Court, you will be adding to the cost and that right will, probably, be exercised as often by the company as by the workers.
The proposal which is being put forward is, as the Minister knows, intended to enable test cases to be decided which may involve a large number of workers. The Minister knows that such cases came before the arbitrators in the past and it was agreed that they involved a large number of persons. If a test case is brought and is decided, that is the end of it.
The arbitration is on a question of fact, is it not?
No, it is on a question of law. In two test cases, two distinguished judges, who were then arbitrators, gave two different decisions on the same kind of argument.
Under the 1924 Act, the arbitrator's decision was final.
If an applicant loses his employment arising out of the coming into operation of this scheme, and if the Minister will bring in the Bill he promised to bring in to see that individuals affected by the arbitration get compensation by law, there will not be any necessity for an appeal——
Deputy Davin's proposition amounts to this: We provide in the Bill that workers are entitled to compensation. If it is held that a worker does not come within the provision, he can appeal to the arbitrator. The arbitrator decides against the worker. I am then to legislate in his favour. The undertaking I gave related to a Bill with a time-clause in it. I have now taken that time-clause out and, consequently, the principal difficulty to which the Deputy referred, arising out of which I gave the undertaking, cannot arise.
That is a change of attitude.
The difficulty cannot arise.
Has not an applicant a right of appeal to the courts under the Constitution?
It has been stated that there is, probably, no question of law which cannot be brought to the High Court by some device. The question here is whether the decision of the arbitrator should be final. I think that it should be final. That was the case under the 1924 Act and under the 1933 Act and I think it should be the case under this Bill.
This amendment was put in at the request of the trade union organisations, representing the organised railway workers. It is put in because of previous costly experience.
They want to have their future experience still more costly.
The Minister need not worry too much about the cost of a case which goes to the High Court. If it is decided to take a case to the High Court, it will be taken because a large number of persons are involved and it would be decided only on a question of law.
It is open to any citizen to go to the courts for an interpretation of the law. What arises here is a determination of fact and, on that issue, I think the arbitration should be final.
Two judges appointed by the Minister's Government took two different views as to the meaning of the law.
I shall look into the point as to the right to get an authoritative interpretation of the Act from the court but I cannot contemplate any appeal from the arbitrator's decision.
Cases of this kind would be very few and would be taken to the High Court only after consultation with the highest legal experts.
The arbitrator's decision should be final and I am certain I am correct when I say that any citizen can get an authoritative decision on the law from the courts.
This is in the interest of large numbers of people who may lose their employment.
You must provide for finality in these cases.
While the arbitrator may decide on the facts, his decision may be bad law. What we are thinking of are test cases governing groups of workers. It should be possible to bring such test cases on questions of law.
I should like to get the views of the Attorney-General on that question and I shall do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 77:—
In sub-section (4), line 33, to delete the word the "Minister" and substitute the words "an interested person or persons".
One of the root objections I have to the Bill is that the Minister appears as the overriding authority in so many sections and that he has the right to decide whether or not certain acts may be done or whether or not certain conditions are fulfilled. In these cases, the people affected by the arbitration, either the company or the employees, or both, should, if they apply to the Chief Justice, be allowed to have arbitration, and it should not rest with the Minister to give his permission for an arbitrator to be appointed. The Minister might decide in favour of the company when an employee might desire to have arbitration and, in that way, unfair discrimination would result against the employee. If the proposed amendment were accepted, the persons concerned could apply to the Chief Justice and obtain arbitration.
I think that the Deputy is misinterpreting the section. Subsections (3) and (4) are mandatory. There is no question of discretion at all. Sub-section (3) says: that if there is any dispute such dispute shall "on the application of the company or such person be referred to the standing arbitrator...."
There is no question of any element of discretion being left to the Minister. If there is a dispute, such a dispute is subject to the decision of the arbitrator. Sub-section (4) of the section says that the Chief Justice, whenever so requested by the Minister, shall appoint a person to be the standing arbitrator for the purpose of this section, and so on.
When requested?
Yes, when it is required to be done. The Minister could not refuse to let the matter go to arbitration. Sub-section (3) says that if dispute or difference shall arise between the company and any person entitled or claiming to be entitled to compensation under the section concerned, as to whether he is or is not entitled to such compensation, or as to the amount or method of calculation of such compensation, such dispute or difference shall, on the application of the company or such person, be referred to the standing arbitrator appointed under that section, and the sub-section goes on to say that under that section the decision of the standing arbitrator shall be final. Sub-section (4) says that the Chief Justice, whenever so requested by the Minister, shall appoint a person to be the standing arbitrator for the purposes of the section, and shall fix the fees to be paid to that person for his services as standing arbitrator.
Then, sub-section (3), in other words, rules sub-section (4)?
Yes, certainly.
Will the Minister explain why he does not compel, if one may be permitted to use that word, the Chief Justice to appoint as arbitrator a man who has been of legal standing for many years?
I would say that that would be an entirely unnecessary provision.
I mean, a man with many years of legal experience.
I think that the man to be appointed would be a man with many years experience,
Let us suppose that it should be made a point that the person to be appointed should have a knowledge of Irish.
Yes, that could be so, in certain circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 78:—
In sub-section (4), line 36, to delete the words "for his services as standing arbitrator" and substitute the words "in respect of any dispute or difference referred to him under sub-section (3) of this section".
The purpose of this amendment will be that the person concerned will be paid fees in accordance with his work.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 79:—
To add at the end of sub-section (6) the following new paragraph:—
(f) may in any case in which he is of opinion that the facts and circumstances and the documents applicable thereto are peculiarly within the knowledge or the possession, power or procurement of the company, require the company to give such evidence thereof as he may deem to be reasonably necessary to enable him to reach a decision.
I do not think the Minister will refuse to accept this amendment because, obviously, there are cases where an unfortunate man may not be able to have his case brought before the court, or to have the necessary documents produced. The purpose of this amendment is to give such a person the right to call on the arbitrator, in certain circumstances, which he thinks proper, to see that the company will produce the necessary documents in order to ensure that the man concerned will receive justice.
I think that this amendment is unnecessary. The Bill says that the standing arbitrator shall have powers of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and the production of such documents as are possessed by the High Court. That is contained in paragraph (c) of sub-section (6) of the section, and that is intended to procure for such people power for the production of any documents that may be necessary.
This amendment is put in as a result of experience—rather painful experience in some cases— where cases were brought before the arbitrator and where there was no power to enforce the production of documents that were in the possession of the company concerned.
But that is not what this amendment is concerned with. The amendment proposes to give power to the arbitrator to procure documents.
Certainly.
Well, my answer to that is that we have provided for that in a much more satisfactory way than is provided for in the amendment.
Where is it provided?
In paragraph (c) of sub-section (6).
Under that section, if an application is made by counsel for an applicant under the section, will the arbitrator be obliged to produce these documents?
If the arbitrator decides that it is necessary to do so, yes, that would be the case.
But if we leave the section as it stands, it would mean that he need not produce these documents?
No. In effect, the purport of the section is that if it should be decided by the arbitrator that, owing to peculiar circumstances, the calling and the examining of witnesses on oath is necessary, then the arbitrator will have power to enforce the attendance of such witnesses and to enforce the production of documents, in the same way as the High Court would have the power. It is for that reason that I think that my proposal is more satisfactory than the one proposed by these Deputies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Is Section 41 agreed to?
No, Sir. I wish to have my name recorded on the minutes of the House as being opposed to the words contained in the Minister's amendment to the section.
I also wish to have my name recorded as dissenting from the wording of the section and the Minister's amendment to it.
I take it, then, that Deputies Martin O'Sullivan and Davin wish to be recorded as dissenting?
For the reasons stated; Sir.
Yes. Then I presume that the House may take it that the section, as amended, is passed, with Deputies Martin O'Sullivan and Davin dissenting from its wording.
Section 41, as amended, put and declared carried.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 80:—
Before Section 42 to insert the following new section:—
The wages, emoluments and conditions of service of any person who was, immediately before the establishment date, an officer or servant of the Dublin United Transport Company, Limited, and who, by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 41 of this Act, becomes an officer or servant of the company, shall for a period of ten years from the establishment date be exempt from any revision or amendment which would, either in its immediate or ultimate effect, cause a worsening of such wages, emoluments or conditions of service.
This amendment has to do with the conditions of the railway workers in County Dublin, and I only want to see that there will be no worsened conditions for those people in the future.
I am sure that the Deputy will appreciate that the passing of this amendment would mean the abolition of the right of free negotiation. I can assure the Deputy that in normal, economic conditions, his wish will be realised, but I think that it would be completely impracticable to impose this ten years' condition on the company, because circumstances might arise under which it is quite conceivable that there might have to be a modification of the present arrangements with the trade union concerned, in order to secure some point which the trade union would regard as important, and if we were to impose such a condition as is suggested by the Deputy in this amendment, the company could not even enter into an arrangement with the trade union with a view to doing what the Deputy suggests here, within that period. I think it is fair to assume that the chairman to be nominated by the Government will be concerned, as the Government will be concerned, to look after the interests of the workers.
Personally, I have no objection to the present chairman. We all recognise that he has certainly provided better conditions for the tramway workers—better conditions than have been provided for tramway workers in any part of Europe, so far as I am informed—but we want that to continue, and the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that it will continue in case there should be any change in the management.
Well, let us suppose, for instance, that there was a deflationary period, such as followed after the last war or, let us say, about 1925, where the company might be faced with a situation which might involve a decrease in wages, even though money might be worth more than it is worth now, and where the union might want to bring about a change in conditions. I do not think that we should say that no such possibility should be precluded from being arranged for.
Will the Minister undertake to see that such matters will be entered into and discussed?
Certainly. It is already covered by legislation, in any case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 81:—
In sub-section (1), line 1, to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall."
This amendment deals with the establishment of a superannuation scheme. I suppose people may assume that it has already been formulated. I am suggesting to the Minister that he should insert the word "shall," thereby making it obligatory on the company to submit the scheme to him.
The procedure that we are going on is that the company may do it, but must do it if they are asked. In practice, we know that the company has done it already. Therefore, I do not think there is any need to discuss the amendment at length.
The scheme referred to by the Minister has no statutory effect.
I am producing another amendment relating to the scheme which meets the point raised by Deputy Doyle.
Would it not be as well to have it definite?
I can assure the Deputy that if the company does not do it, I shall exercise my functions under this section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 82 in the name of Deputy P. S. Doyle is consequential.
I can tell the Deputy, in regard to his amendment, that the scheme is already prepared.
Is the Minister satisfied that it is in hands?
The scheme that the Deputy has in mind is the one set out in my amendment No. 89.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
I move amendment No. 83:—
In sub-section (1), line 5, to insert after the word "employees" the words "or any particular class of the employees."
This is a drafting amendment. The section relates to a scheme for the establishment, on a contributory basis, of a superannuation fund for the employees. The object of the amendment is to make it clear that it may be for the benefit of any class of employees.
There is just one point that I want to make, and it is that railway staffs are referred to as being in particular grades and not classes.
Class is a legal word that designates grades.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 84 not moved.
I move amendment No. 85:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-section:—
(4) Before confirming any superannuation scheme or amending superannuation scheme, the Minister shall hear all parties desirous of being heard and appearing to him to be interested therein.
I am proposing this amendment to meet the point contained in amendment No. 83 submitted by Deputies O'Sullivan, Keyes and Davin. The amendment requires that before confirming any superannuation scheme, or amendment of it, the Minister shall hear all parties desirous of being heard. In amendment No. 86, the words "(including trade unions)" appear. They are not necessary because, presumably, trade unions will be desirous of being heard.
The only point about the Minister's amendment is that it does not include the words "trade unions."
It is not necessary. I am not going to insult the trade unions by saying that they will not be interested and desirous of being heard.
The Minister included the words "trade unions" in the 1933 Act.
The only reason for not including trade unions is that we are now providing for all parties desirous of being heard.
And it is clear that the wording of the amendment includes trade unions?
Yes.
What is the objection to putting in the words "trade unions"
I think myself it would be undesirable to pick out any particular parties for special mention in that regard, especially when it is completely unnecessary to do so.
I am asking the question because the Minister was responsible for putting these words into the 1933 Act. Is there any particular reason why they should be excluded from this Bill?
It is merely a matter of drafting and does not alter the sense of the section.
If the Minister has no serious objection, would he reconsider inserting the words "trade unions"?
The Deputy need have no fears about the amendment I am proposing. It covers trade unions and all parties desirous of being heard. It could not be wider than it is.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 86 not moved.
I move amendment No. 86a:—
Before sub-section (4), in page 20, to insert the following sub-section:—
(5) Every superannuation scheme or amending superannuation scheme prepared and confirmed under this section shall contain provisions enabling the elected representatives of the employees contributing under such scheme to share equally with the representatives of the company in the management of the scheme and any superannuation fund to be established under such scheme.
Since the members of the staff will be compelled to pay their contributions to this fund, it is obvious that they will have a serious interest in its administration. We have experience of funds of this character which have benefited by joint administration. The staffs are anxious that the system of joint administration, which has been in operation for a long time, should be continued. I do not see why the Minister should have any serious objection to that.
I have a very serious objection to making this a legal obligation, and that is what arises here If a scheme is submitted to me for confirmation, and the trade unions, or any other parties, wish to make representations concerning it, their representations will be considered. I am strongly opposed to making it a legal obligation that there shall be joint management of any such schemes. Reference may be made to the fact that we provided in the 1933 Act for such joint management. I want to remind Deputies that the 1933 Act provided for a superannuation scheme which would be based upon the principle of equal contributions by the company and the workers. The scheme which is being devised by the management of the Great Southern Railways Company, and which, presumably, will be the scheme that will be presented for confirmation under this Bill, does not embody the principle of equal contributions. The contributions by the company will be very many times the contributions by the employees. In fact, the cash contributions of the employees will be relatively nominal. For all practical purpose, the benefits which will accrue under the scheme to the workers will take the form of an extension of ordinary remuneration. I do not think it is necessary that we should make it a legal condition that there should be joint committees of management. I do not want to appear at the moment to be offering an opinion on that issue which would make it impossible for me to consider fairly any representations that may subsequently be made, but I certainly will resist strongly the attempt to get a decision on that issue now by making it a legal obligation.
I hope that the opinion just expressed by the Minister is not to be taken as a decision. I deeply regret it because, so far as I know, every superannuation fund worthy of the name is based upon equal representation from the companies on the one side and the employees on the other. I happen to be a member of a superannuation fund which has a membership of 48,000. I believe it is one of the biggest funds of its kind in the world. Its surplus funds at the present time amount to £20,000,000. All these superannuation funds, so far as I know, have statutory effect. The statute provides for their administration, solvency and so forth. Of course, naturally, I am referring to funds that have the backing of British Acts. We have had no funds of that kind established in this State or through the agency of any of the Railway or Transport Acts since the State was established. It is imperative, in my opinion, that there should be equal representation from the company's side and the employees' side if there is to be justice in the administration of a fund of this kind. Cases come before the different superannuation fund committees where there is difference of opinion as to whether, for instance, contributing members should be retired on disability pension. There is one medical view put forward by the management side and another view put forward on behalf of the contributing members. The decision of a medical arbitrator is finally taken. If all the facts surrounding the circumstances of peculiar types of cases are to be fairly decided, I think the Minister will agree that the representatives of the contributing members can give useful information which might never be brought out if they had not representation on the management of the fund.
In this Bill you will be asked to give statutory authority for the framing of a fund which has been recently brought into operation in the Great Southern Railways. I refuse to acknowledge that particular scheme as a superannuation scheme. I can only describe it, as I have described it in a previous discussion, as an insurance scheme which, strange to say, can be terminated by the action of the company's side without consultation of any kind with the contributing members.
The Minister made some point—I do not think it is a very serious point— that the contributing members, that is; the employees who will come under this particular scheme will not be paying a sum equal to that payable by the management side. That may be so, so far as certain aspects of the scheme are concerned, but that should not be used as an argument to deprive the members of the staff, who will be compelled as a condition of service to join this fund, of representation. This scheme came into operation without previous consultation with anyone except persons described as rank and file members of the Great Southern Railways Company staff. When these selected members of the rank and file staff appeared before the present chairman and when one of them mentioned about consulting the trades unions representing the organised railway workers, he was told that he, the chairman, did not want to hear anything regarding the opinion of the trades unions or the leaders of the organised railway workers in a matter of this kind. I hope he will change his mind on that matter. I think he has heard some people recently—I have good authority for stating this—who helped him to change his mind, for very good reasons given.
I know, for instance, that the chairman of the company on a recent occasion met the representatives of what is known as the Old Dublin South-Eastern Friendly Society. As a result of his decision, given without consultation, to wind up that particular society, there was a meeting of those concerned—800 or so—and there was a strong objection taken to the chairman's decision to compel them to wind up the society. Eventually, the chairman was good enough to meet the management committee of that society. I have this from a man who was present, who is an old railway friend of mine. It was proved to the satisfaction of the chairman that if he insisted upon retaining the conditions contained in that particular document, which was brought into operation on the 1st August, in a very hurried way, that a large number of members of the Old Dublin South-Eastern Friendly Society would actually lose as much as 7/6 per week and some of them would lose 5/6 per week. After hearing the deputation, the chairman admitted that he was glad he had met them, that they had given him information of which he had not been previously put in possession—for what reason I do not know—and he promised, as a result of what he had heard, to after the figures contained in the scheme and to make other alterations which, at any rate, would not worsen the existing conditions of the members of that society. What I have stated cannot be challenged, I am sure. I mention it so that it may help to impress upon the Minister the necessity for consultation with the employees or with the elected representatives of the contributing members or existing workers in the particular society.
I would regard it as a most undesirable thing that the chairman of the company or the management of the company would refuse to admit the right of the contributing members to a share in the management of this fund. Cases can arise, and have arisen in the past in most of these funds, where only one side of the case is stated. I can cite for the Minister a matter that was brought under my notice in the last couple of weeks. Prior to the coming into operation of the present management, whenever a member of the staff—it is the clerical staff I am speaking of now—was certified to be suffering from T.B. or nervous breakdown, every conceivable consideration and assistance was given to enable such person to recover and to resume duty. Now there is a new order brought into operation whereby, at the end of 26 weeks, a person who was certified by the medical officer of the company to be suffering from T.B. or nervous breakdown must get out of the service. That is a thing that does not exist in any other railway company or in respect of any contributing member to any other superannuation fund that I know of.
About ten years ago a colleague of mine had to leave off work owing to failing eyesight. He was regarded as a serious case. He was sent to an eye specialist and an operation was performed. After a year and three months, during which period he received his full salary from the company, he resumed work and, in the last few months, retired with full pension at the age of 65. I appeal to the Minister to use his influence with the management of the company to ensure that in future, at any rate, they will try to do for the members of the staff of the new company what is being done for the members of the staffs of other companies in similar cases. I do not know why this change was made. I think it must have been made on bad advice, without a desire to do anything unfair to the staff concerned.
If there were joint consultation before schemes of this kind were framed and before serious decisions of this kind were arrived at—and such consultation would be possible if there were joint representation on the management of the fund—I think such decisions would not be taken. They would not be taken in a light-hearted way and they would not be taken without consideration of the serious consequences to the individuals concerned. I am sure there is no desire on the part of the present chairman of the Great Southern Railways Company to worsen the conditions of the contributing members to the superannuation funds. I accept the statement from the Minister that it is his desire and the desire of his nominee on the board to improve the conditions.
If all the facts of peculiar cases are to be taken into consideration, and if there is to be justice and fair play in the decisions given, the point of view of contributing members to funds of this kind will have to be taken into consideration. The only way to do that is to hear the point of view of the other person. I have been long enough connected with railways and associated with colleagues from other railways to know that if you want to get at the management with regard to particular types of cases, it is often difficult to get to the man at the top. I was for a number of years a member of the advisory committee of the London and North Western Railway Superannuation Fund, which subsequently became the L.M.S., and I have experience of cases of that kind. If you want to have goodwill and fair decisions in exceptional types of cases the method by which they can be dealt with is by having the collective wisdom of representatives of the management and of contributing members. Our intervention on this Bill, as well as the amendments that were put down, was solely for the purpose of making it a better Bill. The desire is to make it possible on 1st January, 1945, to have the best of goodwill established on the date on which will come into operation the biggest transport scheme ever submitted in this country.
On reading the Bill it strikes me that what the Minister put into various sub-sections would lead everybody to believe that this scheme would be a success. We must take notice of what the Minister said, that the contributions of the company will be three or four times greater than the employees.
More than five times greater.
In that case I do not think Deputy Davin can argue that there should be equal representation of employees and employers. Of course the contributions which amount to more than five times those of employees will be contributed by the public. If the Minister would agree to give representation on the basis of contributions, possibly that might meet Deputy Davin's wishes, as there would be representation of employees. I take it that the Minister has something like that in mind, although that does not appear to be so from the wording of the section. I cannot imagine the company's representatives adjudicating on any matter that comes before them without having the advice of some of the employees. While the representation might not be equal I suggest that there should be some representation on behalf of the employees.
I put it to the House that we should not decide this issue now. As I understand, Deputy Davin and his colleagues wish to provide that there will be a joint committee which will ensure equal representation between the management and the employees of the company. As I understand, the company contend that a joint committee of management of that nature is a device associated with funds based on equal contributions, and would not be appropriate to this scheme. I am asking the House to reject the amendment to avoid a decision on that issue. I am assuming that that issue will arise on representations made under amendment No. 86, which is being incorporated in the Bill. Deputies will understand the difficulty of discussing the matter at this stage without appearing to prejudice the decision that will be then given.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 87:—
At the end of the section to insert the following sub-section:—
(5) A fund set up for the purposes of a superannuation scheme shall be deemed to be set up under an irrevocable trust.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that moneys set aside by the company for a superannuation scheme will be deemed to be set up under an irrevocable trust.
Does the Minister prefer this amendment to amendment No. 97?
Amendment No. 97 relates to the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund. The only point about this amendment is that funds created in connection with the present scheme of the company are deemed to be set up under an irrevocable trust. The effect is that income-tax will not be payable. It does not affect the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund at all.
Has the Minister been advised on that?
The amendment was prepared by the draftsman in consultation with the Revenue Commissioners. I am told it is all right.
There are other conditions as well as the establishment of an irrevocable trust, but this is supposed to meet the point.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 42, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 43.
I move amendment No. 88:—
In sub-section (1), to delete lines 31 and 32 and insert the following words: "or scheme established by that dissolved company or, if that dissolved company is the dissolved railway company, by an absorbed company or an amalgamated company within the meaning of the Railways Acts, 1924 (No. 29 of 1924), and in existence immediately before the establishment date, and includes the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund."
In the discussion on the Second Reading it became clear that it was necessary to amend the definition of existing superannuation fund to include existing schemes which were established by the dissolved company and certain other schemes. These funds are continued by sub-section (2) of this section and are subject to amendments which will be moved which will provide that the company may cease to contribute to the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund. I assume that Deputies will want to discuss this question and the position of the company in relation to the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund. It might be done most effectively on amendments Nos. 92 or 97. The effect of this amendment is to make it clear that the definition of existing superannuation funds is not merely confined to funds of the dissolved companies but to funds established by companies which were absorbed in the Great Southern Railways in 1924.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 89:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert the following sub-section:—
(3) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to every existing superannuation fund established in the year 1944:—
(a) the company shall submit to the Minister within one month after the establishment date the scheme relating to such fund;
(b) the Minister may refer the scheme back to the company for reconsideration and fresh submission or by order confirm the scheme either without modification or with such modifications (whether by way of addition, omission or variation) as the Minister thinks proper;
(c) before confirming the scheme, the Minister shall hear all parties desirous of being heard and appearing to him to be interested therein;
(d) the scheme shall, if not so confirmed within three months after the establishment date, cease to be in force but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This amendment requires the company to submit for confirmation as a new scheme the scheme which was devised and brought into operation this year. The effect, therefore, is to bring the scheme within the definition of a new scheme and make operative the previous amendment which entitles all parties to make representations prior to the confirmation of the scheme.
Does the Minister mean that this is an alternative to amendment No. 90?
I think it meets amendment No. 90 in full.
Mr. O'Sullivan
Except that it does not include the words "trade unions".
"All parties" includes trade unions.
The Minister intends to apply the terms of this amendment to this scheme which was supposed to come into operation in a certain form on 1st August, 1944?
The position was that the Bill, as framed, stated that any new scheme for a superannuation fund devised by the company would be submitted to the Minister for confirmation and brought into operation, if confirmed by the Minister or subject to whatever amendments he required to be made in it. The complaint was made here that the company had forestalled the enactment of the measure by devising and bringing into operation a pensions scheme this year and that they escaped the necessity of submitting that scheme for confirmation. We are dealing with that situation by this amendment which requires that any scheme brought into operation in 1944 will be submitted for confirmation in the same manner as a new scheme would have to be submitted for confirmation, and it therefore makes operative the provision which entitles all parties to be heard by the Minister in connection with the scheme before he confirms it.
This scheme which the Minister has in mind was published for the first time some time about the middle of June and all the employees were obliged, at very short notice and without getting reasonable time to consult legal advice, to indicate their willingness to participate in it. I am glad the Minister has brought in the amendment, so that the scheme will have to conform to the conditions in operation at the time it was issued, so far as confirmation is concerned. I am personally very glad to hear that this scheme which came into operation on August 1st is being made retrospective in some cases I know of to 1st March last, but I appeal to the Minister to use his good offices with the chairman to make it retrospective to an earlier date.
The Deputy is forestalling the operation of amendment No. 85. I am quite sure he would not expect me to express any opinion on a matter of the kind in advance of whatever representations will be made.
I would not, but for one reason. The Minister cannot give effect in the usual official way to the intention contained in his new amendment, with which I fully agree, until after 1st January. There are a number of people who will be in a very peculiar position in the meantime.
In the meantime, I have no function at all.
The Minister has this function, that he can use his good offices, if he so desires, for the purpose of seeing that justice is meted out to all those entitled to consideration under the terms of the scheme. This peculiar position will arise, that a man who retires next week will get 37/6 per week under the scheme, because it is in operation at the end of next week so far as he is concerned, while a man in a similar position on the same section of the system will get 19/10 per week. I wonder why 19/10 was fixed for a man with 46 years' service with the company in the City of Dublin. I inquired whether the 2d. deduction was to cover postage on his weekly amount.
In that case it would be 2½d.
There may have been some mistake—it possibly should be 19/9½. There are peculiar cases which might be rectified with the consent of the Minister and chairman without waiting another five or six months. However, when the Minister does come to consider it and to give his decision, might I appeal to him to try to have it made retrospective to a date earlier than 1st March of this year? It would not be unreasonable, if he desires to cover very exceptional cases, that it should come into operation as from the date the chairman was appointed by the Minister, 24th February, 1942, if the funds available for the scheme can bear such a strain.
Is the Deputy not now speaking about something which is outside the scope of the amendment?
He got his point in, anyway.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.
I move amendment No. 92:—
In sub-section (4), page 21, in lines 1 and 2, to delete the words "or in respect of the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund," and in line 4, to delete the words "or of the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund."
This is a drafting amendment consequential on the acceptance of amendment No. 88. The Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund is specifically included in the definition of an existing superannuation fund by virtue of that amendment, so that the specific reference to it in this sub-section is no longer required.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 93:—
To add at the end of sub-section (4) the following words:—
"Provided, however, that notwithstanding that the dissolved railway company was not an assenting contributing body to the reorganisation which came into operation upon the first day of July, 1941, of the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Corporation all persons who were officers or servants of the dissolved railway company and who were and are members of the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund and all female clerical employees of the dissolved railway company shall be entitled to and shall receive the same benefits, rights and privileges as they would have been or might have become entitled to if the dissolved railway company had become and been an assenting contributing body and had fulfilled all the legal and customary requirements of an assenting contributing body to the said reorganisation".
The Minister will recall that on a previous occasion I gave, as well as I possibly could, the history of this fund. It has been in operation for roughly 70 years. It was originally confined to the British Railway Clearing House, but it extended to the Irish Railway Clearing House and we have been contributing to it for a period of roughly 60 years. As a matter of interest, arising out of discussion of a previous amendment, the fund is managed by a joint committee of management, composed of six representatives of the staff and six representatives of the various companies.
The funds of this corporation have undoubtedly been very wisely invested, but it has not been found possible to give to the staffs the form of pensions they desired, particularly in later years, and an agitation has been going on for some considerable time for an improvement in the pensions. The low pensions derivable from the fund were based on low rates of contributions and, of course, very low scales of salaries. That position was improved in 1919, and in later years it was found possible to reorganise the fund so that, in July, 1941, a new scheme of benefits came into operation. All the companies in Ireland, including the Irish Railway Clearing House assented to the increased contributions necessary to obtain the new benefits, with the exception of the Great Southern Railways. They have been dissenters for the past two years.
Arising out of that position, the Minister in the last Dáil did undertake to ensure that, notwithstanding that dissent of the company, none of the people concerned, to the number of roughly 1,400, would lose in any way whatever and the matter was also referred to in a statement by the chairman previously. The position at present is that these 1,400 people, until we get some assurance on this amendment, have no guarantee that they will get the benefits which their colleagues in the city on other railways have been enjoying since 1941. The Minister has not put down an amendment and I take it that, in view of his assurance, he has left it to us to put forward a suitable amendment. It is because of that that we have tabled this in such a careful manner as to leave the Minister no option, shall I say, but to accede to it—at least we hope so.
So far as the fund is concerned, there may be objections, of course, from the point of view of the company to assenting to go into that fund on the ground that its headquarters are outside this country. I indicated on the last occasion that there were means by which the money to the credit of the staffs here could be taken over here, but only if a certain condition had been fulfilled and that is, that the committee of management of that fund would be satisfied that in the new fund to be set up benefits would be given to the staffs not less favourable than those in the reorganised scheme of 1941. As I understand the position, the company would appear to favour the setting up of a new fund and, very possibly, steps will be taken in constitutional form to satisfy the management committee of the Clearing House Fund that they are setting up that type of fund. That, of course, is a matter of detail.
What we are aiming at here is to ensure that the people concerned, roughly numbering 1,400, will be given the guarantee of the Minister and this House that this superannuation fund to be set up will have the sanction of the Minister and the backing of this House and will guarantee to the members benefits no less than those operating under the revised scheme of 1941, and that that should include the lady clerks of the Great Southern Railways, because in the revision that took place the lady clerks of that company were admitted to the fund and were allowed to back-date their membership, provided their age did not exceed 50, on certain favourable terms. Therefore, we are including the lady clerks—they are a comparatively small number by the way—because if the revision took place in 1941, the lady clerks would automatically have been included, and we suggest that that should be done. I feel that there will not be any objection on the part of the Minister to acknowledge that principle— that the section of the staff to which I have referred and who are covered in this particular fund will have his guarantee and the guarantee of the House along the lines I have suggested.
Deputy O'Sullivan is aware that I am proposing to move a later amendment, amendment No. 97, which will provide that, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the company may, if it so thinks fit, at any time cease to contribute to the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund. I think Deputy Doyle has an amendment on the Paper with a completely opposite effect. I am of the opinion that it is desirable that the company should withdraw from the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund. I want to make it clear that that view is subject to what I have already said, that arrangements are made to secure for the clerical staff of the company benefits as good as those which they would have received if the company had been an assenting member in respect of the recent increase in contributions. I understand that the position is that the company can withdraw from the fund, but unless there is a joint approach by the company and its employees and the consent of the management committee there is a prospect that the company may lose the contributions paid by it into the fund. The employees are entitled on such withdrawal to get their contributions back; the company is not.
I assume it will be practicable to get a joint approach to the management committee and the assent of the committee to the withdrawal of the company from the fund on satisfactory terms. Deputy O'Sullivan tells me that the management committee will require to be satisfied that arrangements have been made to ensure that the employees of the company will get equally satisfactory benefits. If and when new arrangements are made and a new scheme devised, it will have to be submitted, under the terms of the Bill, for confirmation, and it will be my duty to ensure that the undertaking I gave will be implemented. I think the scheme will be such as to ensure that the employees of the company will not have lost by reason of the change. I would resist entirely the suggestion of Deputy Doyle which is, I understand, that the company must remain a contributing member of the fund.
That amendment is out of order.
Then I need not refer to it. In fact, I am not sure that it is desirable that the company should remain a member of the English Railway Clearing House. It is by reason of membership of the English Railway Clearing House that it can participate in the superannuation fund. It seems to me that that is an anachronism arising out of the period of union and that the membership of an Irish railway company in that British Railway Clearing House is no longer necessary or desirable. The withdrawal from membership of the English Railway Clearing House will disqualify the company from being a member of the superannuation fund, in any event. That view, although I think it should be expressed, does not affect the position, because the main issue that arises here is the steps to be taken to ensure the introduction of a new scheme that will obtain for the clerical staff of the company benefits as satisfactory as they would get from the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund if the company had been an assenting member in the sense described in the amendment. I do not want to go into that at any length. I understand that steps are being taken to get a joint approach to the management committee of the fund and, if that approach is successful, I understand that a scheme will be submitted to me for confirmation under the Bill. I can undertake that, at that stage, I will not merely consider any representations which may be made by interested parties, but be personally concerned to ensure that the undertaking I gave on the Second Reading will be fully carried out.
What about the position of retired persons between the date when they were retired and whatever time this fund is established?
Discussion on the last occasion arose out of the effect on the clerical staff of the refusal of the company to assent to the change of contributions. I stated that I had inquired and had been informed that it was the intention of the company to ensure that none of the clerical staff would lose by reason of that refusal of assent. I assume that the scheme which will be prepared for submission will contain a provision to cover that aspect of the matter.
What about the money that they have been waiting for over a long period? Men who have been retired recently are still waiting for that promise to be complied with so far as the money is concerned.
The procedure for implementing the intentions of the company in that regard, I understand, has not yet been determined, but my information is that discussions on the matter are going on now.
Mr. O'Sullivan
Does the Minister see any objection to accepting the amendment in its present form? It is merely accepting the principle of superannuation on the lines promised.
I think it is undesirable that we should accept the amendment now in view of the situation developing. One of two things can happen. Either there will be no withdrawal from the fund, in which case the intention of the company to ensure that the staff will get the same benefits as if it had been an assenting member will have to be implemented in some way, or else there will be withdrawal from the fund and the establishment of a new fund. That new fund will have to be submitted for confirmation and at that stage any representations which interested parties want to make can be considered. Furthermore, any undertaking that I have given will be implemented.
Does the Minister realise that persons who retired in the recent past are still waiting for their money, and that persons who will retire in the immediate future may be in a similar position?
I understand it has been intimated to them that the company intends to ensure that they will not lose by that situation.
When will payments be brought up to date—put on an improved basis?
There would have to be a new scheme devised and brought into operation before the company could do it. I do not know precisely what are the powers of the company in that regard.
It is a serious thing for some of those people who have retired on comparatively small pensions.
I assume they will be covered by the new scheme.
But the money will not be paid them until the new scheme comes into operation.
I do not see how it could be paid. I could not express an opinion as to whether the company would be empowered to do that. There was a statement definitely made to the effect that the company would take steps to ensure that these people did not lose.
That would affect those who retired since 1941?
That would be my interpretation.
A man with, say, £300 a year, would have a pension of £145. Under an improved scheme that man would get £150, in round figures, and a lump sum of £230 or £240. It is a serious thing for him to be pushed out on a comparatively small pension and to have to wait for the lump sum.
It must be remembered that the employee would have paid a lower contribution than he otherwise would have to pay. One of the objections to the amendment is that it does not provide for the increased contribution.
Has not the company a reserve fund out of which they could pay this money? They have decided to pay big lump sums out of the reserve fund to a number of officials who retired previous to Mr. Reynolds becoming the chairman.
The intentions of the company have been made clear in that regard. It is the machinery that is the matter at issue. I understand some discussions in that regard have taken, or are taking, place.
Do I understand the position to be that either of two things will occur, that the company will assent and give the conditions which were in operation since 1941, or alternatively, before the established date they will introduce a scheme which the Minister will see ensures benefits not less favourable than the benefits under the 1941 scheme to the staffs of the Great Southern Railways?
Not necessarily so. It is improbable the company will assent, but if they remain members of the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund there will have to be an arrangement to make up to the employees through some other means the difference between the benefits they will get and the benefits they would have got. It is far more likely there will be a withdrawal from the fund and a new scheme, because otherwise difficulties will arise, including the difficulty in relation to new entrants. I understand that one of the rules is that all the clerical staff must be covered by the fund, and the company is contemplating an arrangement only in relation to the existing staff, with a different position for the new entrants. A more satisfactory arrangement would be a withdrawal from the fund and the establishment of a new fund. The alternatives will be the existing position, with a supplemental allowance paid to the clerical staff on retirement, or a new scheme, the probability being a new scheme.
I made what I considered was a reasonable request, and that is that an officer who has been retired since 1941——
That that should be looked after. I agree it is a reasonable case.
There are some who will retire in the immediate future. In present circumstances it is a serious matter for these people and if it is possible, out of the reserve fund, for the company to make these payments, it would be very desirable. If they had the power to vote large sums to higher officers, executive officers, before the chairman came into office, surely the same could be done to-day. It is an easy matter to make the necessary adjustments.
As regards the position of railway clerks who might be adversely affected by the refusal of the company to assent to the change, there was an intimation that they would not lose in consequence.
If there is machinery available for doing it, that matter will be looked after?
It is being discussed now, I understand.
Has the Minister any information as to the intention of the company to apply for membership of the fund?
I think the intentions of the company are to apply for the consent of the management committee to withdraw from the fund.
Deputy O'Sullivan put two positions to the Minister. There seems to be a third, but I assume it is covered by the guarantee. Deputy O'Sullivan stated that the company will either withdraw from the fund or will decide to be a party to it. What is the third position? They may decide to be a party, and that will be refused by the corporation who run this fund.
They are members of the fund now.
If it is a case of all in and not some coming in and some going out, they might say: "We cannot accept you because the rules are going to be broken." The Minister's guarantee has not covered that.
It covers other circumstances in which the company ceases to be a member of the fund.
If they are prevented from continuing——
I should like to indicate what the term "assent" relates to. The company is a member of the fund. Contributions have been paid into the fund and the staff are entitled to certain benefits. Some time ago there was a proposal to increase these contributions and to get new benefits. The company did not assent to the proposed increased contribution and the position remains as if the proposal was not made. We are faced with two points. What is going to be the position of the clerical staff if the company continues its membership of the fund; in other words, by what steps are the staffs to get the benefits which they would have got if the company assented to the new proposals? And again, what steps will be taken to secure equal benefits for the staff following a withdrawal from the fund?
Does "equal benefit" mean benefit equal to what they had prior to 1941?
No, equal benefit to what they would have got if the company was a consenting member.
The point raised by Deputy Davin is is an interesting one. The Minister says that these people will be in the same position as if they still continued in this fund. We will achieve that by continuing them, if we can, or else by an alternative scheme. It is intended to give them the same benefit terms. There is no question of there being a lack of reserve funds. Surely, it ought to be possible to deal with a limited number of men immediately?
There has been this declaration of intention by the company to ensure that these staffs who are retired or who are about to retire will not be worse off.
I understand now that the whole thing is that the men can cash in on that promise immediately?
Yes, that is the position.
Some of them are very badly off.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
I move amendment No. 94:—
In sub-section (5), line 11, to delete the word "who".
This is an amendment to correct a printing error.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 95:—
In sub-section (6), line 20, to delete the words "the said" and substitute the words "any such".
This is purely a drafting amendment also.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 96:—
In sub-section (6), line 25, to insert after the word "fund" the following: "established before the 1st day of August, 1943."
Sub-section (6) of this section preserves the right of persons in the employment of any dissolved company who are entitled to membership of any existing superannuation scheme, but who are not members, to become members of any such fund. In the final paragraph of the sub-section it is provided, however, that save as aforesaid no person shall be entitled to become a member of any existing superannuation fund of a dissolved company who was not so entitled immediately before the establishment date. The Great Southern Railways Company superannuation schemes and the Dublin United Transport Company's schemes are existing schemes, and this amendment is necessary because, otherwise, new entrants would not be entitled to become members. It is intended, however, that new entrants should not be entitled to join other schemes established before 1st August, 1943, including the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund.
That insertion is to be made after the word "fund" where it occurs in line 25. How is that reconciled with lettered paragraph (b) of sub-section (6)? Presumably, the whole thing applies to persons who are in the service of the dissolved company——
And are not members of the existing fund.
Would those people not be members of an existing fund?
No.
Are they not members of funds which are now in existence?
What we say here is that if there is a person who is in the service of the company and not a member of the existing fund, he shall have the same right to become a member of the fund as he would have if that dissolved company had not been dissolved.
I thought you were referring to people who are now, so to speak, inside the funds.
No. We are protecting the right of persons to become members of existing funds, excluding the schemes established prior to August, 1943, and the Railway Clearing Fund in respect of new entrants.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 97:—
At the end of the section to add the following new sub-section:—
Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the company may, if it so thinks fit, at any time cease to contribute to the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund.
This is the amendment to which I referred when we were discussing amendment No. 93.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 98:—
At the end of the section to add the following new sub-section:—
An existing superannuation fund of a dissolved company shall be deemed to have been set up under an irrevocable trust.
This is the same amendment in principle as that which I moved earlier in relation to a new fund. It provides that the existing fund should also be an irrevocable trust, which has the effect of exempting it from income-tax.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 99:—
At the end of the section to add the following new sub-section:—
Any gratuitous pension or allowance which immediately prior to the passing of this Act was paid or made to any person who was a former employee of any dissolved company shall continue to be paid or made by the company in the same manner and upon the same conditions as it would have been paid or made had the said dissolved company continued to exist.
This amendment is really designed to safeguard ex gratia pensions, small pensions given for some time by the company. I do not think there is any intention to discontinue those pensions, but it is desirable that they should be covered so far as the Bill is concerned.
I do not think it would be desirable to make them a legal obligation. I assure the House that there is no intention on the part of the company to discontinue those pensions, but I think it would be a wrong step to take now to make those pensions which were paid by the company in the past, and which will continue to be paid so long as the recipients live, a legal obligation. I would ask the Deputy not to press this amendment, because I think it would be a wrong step to take. Those pensions were paid ex gratia, and the intention is to continue the payment. I think we should leave it at that, rather than at this stage seem to imply that the company is going to depart from the practice. It is not going to depart from the practice, and, therefore, it is not necessary to make it a legal obligation.
Is it clearly understood that it is the intention of the company to continue those pensions?
It is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 43, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
What is the reason for the objection with regard to this Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund?
The Railway Clearing House is a body established to deal with the clearing business of the British railways. The fund was established under the auspices of the British Railway Clearing house, and membership was confined to companies that were members of the House. The Irish railway companies became members of the British Railway Clearing House at a time when this country and Great Britain were the same legal unit. There is no reason whatever why the Great Southern Railways Company or Córas Iompair Éireann should remain a member of the British Clearing House. It has no business to do there, and would in fact have no association with that House except through the superannuation fund. The discussions that may take place there relate to English transport problems. The clearing between the Irish railways and the English railways is done through the Irish Railway Clearing House, of which the British companies operating to this country are members.
The general practice appears to have been in favour of the establishment of company funds for clerical staff. In fact all the big British systems have withdrawn from the Clearing System Superannuation Fund already. I think at the present time the biggest company in the fund is the Great Southern Railways Company, and the decision of that company to establish their own superannuation fund is in accordance with the action taken already by all the big British companies. I think membership of the House is itself undesirable. It could be regarded as an anachronism, a survival of the time when this country was the same political unit as Great Britain, and I think the retention of membership, particularly for the purpose of maintaining association with this fund, is in itself undesirable.
Is the Great Northern Company a member?
It operates into Northern Ireland.
But it is still a member?
I believe so.
And the L.M.S. is still a member of this Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund?
The L.M.S. is not in the fund.
It was never in it.
It was never in it.
On the separation generally there was an arrangement about parcelling out the fund that had been amassed?
That is a problem which arises. As I understand it the Great Southern Railways Company has about £500,000 in this fund. They could withdraw from the fund, sacrificing this £500,000, in which event the employees would get back their contribution, plus interest, but it is desirable to have some arrangement under which separation will take place by agreement, involving the transfer for the benefit to the new fund of the contributions previously paid.
Is there a precedent for that?
Yes. Many British railways have already withdrawn from the fund and have not had to sacrifice their past contributions.
As a matter of interest, would legislation be necessary on the other side to secure that transfer to the fund?
I do not think so. Again, I do not want to be taken as expressing a positive opinion because I could not get a positive decision myself. In so far as I could interpret the opinions available, it would not appear to be necessary.
Would the Minister make inquiries about that?
The matter is being fully examined at the moment.
Will it be necessary to bring the agreed scheme to the House?
The agreed scheme will be submitted to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Under the Bill?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again at 7 p.m.